AshNZ wrote:
Hi, I'm here for the Leica bashing.
Have I come to right place?

If you like to be bashed..

That 10-years ahead. Well funny quote.

In some aspects, they are far better than others (S is like regular dSLR in every aspect, others except 645D are not). But for example PhaseOne has sorta working LiveView in latest backs. So certainly not ahead in sensor tech..

10 years from now I expect CMOS based backs with LV (unless some new technology will arise). Probably some mirrorless MF (most likely all MF will be mirrorless in 10 years). Different CFAs than regular ones (I think X-trans and maybe even RGBCMY CFAs are possible, pixel count is high enough).

And most likely 6x7 backs (or maybe fully integrated mirrorless). Which will be hyperexpensive.

In very long term, there will be 8x10 cams (unless some manufacturing breakthrough will be involved, it will take bit more than 10 years).

Warren, no one says they're ever going to catch up and match. All I was saying is that each type of format has their use. You do not need MF look for every application. You do not need FF look for every application. As the prices get more expensive and the megapixels reach higher and higher, it's harder to justify the need for each format for every use. Most people who use smartphone cameras do not need a FF camera or even APS-C. Before they were satisfied by smartphone cameras, they all thought they needed a DSLR for quality images and would have bought one. Now, that part of the market is disappearing for DSLR makers.

This was a commentary on product marketing and sales trend not on image quality. People need to chill and stop jumping to conclusion. This is the last I'm going to comment on this subject because it gets tedious and it becomes repetitive and stirs up needless emotions. The same goes for Zeiss vs Leica and Canon vs Nikon. It's a waste of calories.

I own a DMF, FF, mirrorless, and smartphone. Sure, the DMF look is amazing, but for most of my shooting, I find my mirrorless is just more practical. When walking around on the street, I get very conscientious carrying my 35mm or MF DSLR. I'm really tired of so many people coming up and asking me if my H4D is a video camera or commenting that "wow, that is a real professional camera" when referring to my 70-200. I just want to take my photo as discretely as possible and move on. You'll find few sports photog using MF. More and more, you find more 35mm doing ad work, and as print dies, you're likely going to see even 35mm getting less and less share of ad work simply because the medium with which people get their media consumption is changing. It's the same reason why you see less and less large format. Other formats become good enough or the media consumption trend changes. This says NOTHING about the relative strength of one format vs the other. It's all about societal and market sales trend. Change is the one constant in this universe and is happening.

The best cellphones are already good enough for some very good photography. Some photojournalists use them exclusively. I don't think that they will ever take over certain segments though, no matter how good they get. The look is everything for serious hobby photographers

I have nothing against the S and would just like to mention that so far, in London and other euorpean cities we work, not one single commercial photographer or studio has such equipment on all levels from medium to high end photographers.

I think this shows that the size gap between FF 35 and the sensor size used by the Leica S2 (and Pentax 645D) is small enough that the rapidly advancing FF 35mm sensor technology will make it impossible for that size to compete long term (unless Sony starts making sensors that size!). This also shows the huge difference in size between FF 35 and full size MF sensors used in cameras that do not cost more as a system than the S2 (and why I suspect the larger MF sensors will be around for a while). As good as the Leica lenses are, they can't change physics!

Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think this shows that the size gap between FF 35 and the sensor size used by the Leica S2 (and Pentax 645D) is small enough that the rapidly advancing FF 35mm sensor technology will make it impossible for that size to compete long term (unless Sony starts making sensors that size!). This also shows the huge difference in size between FF 35 and full size MF sensors used in cameras that do not cost more as a system than the S2 (and why I suspect the larger MF sensors will be around for a while). As good as the Leica lenses are, they can't change physics!

No, but they could make a higher resolution sensor for the S2 format size as they are now doing for the FF 35mm sensors. As we know the APS C sensors are already producing sharpness close to that of many of the FF sensors.

naturephoto1 wrote:
No, but they could make a higher resolution sensor for the S2 format size as they are now doing for the FF 35mm sensors. As we know the APS C sensors are already producing sharpness close to that of many of the FF sensors.

Rich

I'm just wondering who is going to make it for such low volume sales. The other thing - and the point I have been stressing - is there is more to it than just resolution. As we know also from APS vs FF 35, format size has a lot to do with look/ dof/ and so on - qualities that are strictly dependent upon format size. A lot of folks use larger formats for more than just higher resolution. Basically, the Leica S2 format size is to full size MF just as APS is to FF 35.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
I'm just wondering who is going to make it for such low volume sales. The other thing - and the point I have been stressing - is there is more to it than just resolution. As we know also from APS vs FF 35, format size has a lot to do with look/ dof/ and so on - qualities that are strictly dependent upon format size. A lot of folks use larger formats for more than just higher resolution. Basically, the Leica S2 format size is to full size MF just as APS is to FF 35.

I understand about the look, resolution, smoothness etc. coming from a background of shooting 4" X 5", 6 X 7, 6 X 6, and 35mm transparencies for years.

sflxn wrote:
I own a DMF, FF, mirrorless, and smartphone. Sure, the DMF look is amazing, but for most of my shooting, I find my mirrorless is just more practical. When walking around on the street, I get very conscientious carrying my 35mm or MF DSLR. I'm really tired of so many people coming up and asking me if my H4D is a video camera or commenting that "wow, that is a real professional camera" when referring to my 70-200. I just want to take my photo as discretely as possible and move on. You'll find few sports photog using MF. More and more, you find more 35mm doing ad work, and as print dies, you're likely going to see even 35mm getting less and less share of ad work simply because the medium with which people get their media consumption is changing. It's the same reason why you see less and less large format. Other formats become good enough or the media consumption trend changes. This says NOTHING about the relative strength of one format vs the other. It's all about societal and market sales trend. Change is the one constant in this universe and is happening....Show more →

If you look at photography technology historically, this trend has been fact for a very long time. Imaging formats have progressively become smaller in line with market demands.

Regarding the ZM85/2: In my brief experience with it, I did not find it to be lacking contrast wide open. It's really an excellent, sharp lens. If it has a fault, it's the tendency to purple fringe quite strongly wide open.

I suspect in 5 years time when ~50MP sensors will be the norm, we're going to see a lot of $3000-5000 lenses from the mainstream manufacturers. Canon and Nikon are already heading there with their most recent releases. And Zeiss is also creeping upwards.

I wonder if this might then interest Leica? With their new factory soon coming online, perhaps they can produce their equivalent to a ZE/ZF line of lenses at a premium price point?

M-240 is 24 mpix FF with CMOS, as we know thats not CMOS limit. Current highest is D800 with 36 mpix. If that company which makes M-240 sensor can make 36 mpix FF, then it quite possibly can make next S4 sensor with 58 mpix. And it will have same pixel density as D800.

Its a bit "if", but I think Leica pours enough money into reasearch and development and they apparently dont want to fall behind. So if they continue with their S line they will have about 60% advantage over FF as it has now (S has pixel density same as M-240).

And I dont doubt that their lens can cope with 58 mpix. They are designed to much higher specs than to just S2. Which cant be said about most Nikkor lens (well nothing that R-lens couldnt fix as our alternate corner proves every day ).

rscheffler wrote:
I wonder if this might then interest Leica? With their new factory soon coming online, perhaps they can produce their equivalent to a ZE/ZF line of lenses at a premium price point?

sflxn wrote:
Warren, no one says they're ever going to catch up and match. All I was saying is that each type of format has their use. You do not need MF look for every application. You do not need FF look for every application. As the prices get more expensive and the megapixels reach higher and higher, it's harder to justify the need for each format for every use. Most people who use smartphone cameras do not need a FF camera or even APS-C. Before they were satisfied by smartphone cameras, they all thought they needed a DSLR for quality images and would have bought one. Now, that part of the market is disappearing for DSLR makers.

This was a commentary on product marketing and sales trend not on image quality. People need to chill and stop jumping to conclusion. This is the last I'm going to comment on this subject because it gets tedious and it becomes repetitive and stirs up needless emotions. The same goes for Zeiss vs Leica and Canon vs Nikon. It's a waste of calories.

I own a DMF, FF, mirrorless, and smartphone. Sure, the DMF look is amazing, but for most of my shooting, I find my mirrorless is just more practical. When walking around on the street, I get very conscientious carrying my 35mm or MF DSLR. I'm really tired of so many people coming up and asking me if my H4D is a video camera or commenting that "wow, that is a real professional camera" when referring to my 70-200. I just want to take my photo as discretely as possible and move on. You'll find few sports photog using MF. More and more, you find more 35mm doing ad work, and as print dies, you're likely going to see even 35mm getting less and less share of ad work simply because the medium with which people get their media consumption is changing. It's the same reason why you see less and less large format. Other formats become good enough or the media consumption trend changes. This says NOTHING about the relative strength of one format vs the other. It's all about societal and market sales trend. Change is the one constant in this universe and is happening....Show more →

You don't get it. More Mega Pixels does not equal better quality.

Your experience is different than mines as I use a DSLR with long lenses and never get asked what I'm shooting and I never have people walk up to me and the few times they have it was because they asked for my business card.

Also cameras and lenses are already small enough. Downgrading to point and shoots is useless to me.

I used to lug around prosumer grade camcorders and those compared to small camcorders is still not worth the difference in quality.

If I had to I would lug around a 50 pounds camera and 20 pound lens to get photos as long as the quality justified it and even if everyone noticed me.

For me, my vision and being able to get the best image quality that lines up with that vision is more important than not getting as much attention and using a light system that is not nearly as capable.

Right now cell phones are at least 10 years behind even the top of the line Point & Shoots.

Go back 10 years and even then the cell phones probably aren't even as good as those 10 year old top of the line point and shoots.

warrenjrphotog wrote:
You don't get it. More Mega Pixels does not equal better quality.

Your experience is different than mines as I use a DSLR with long lenses and never get asked what I'm shooting and I never have people walk up to me and the few times they have it was because they asked for my business card.

Also cameras and lenses are already small enough. Downgrading to point and shoots is useless to me.

I used to lug around prosumer grade camcorders and those compared to small camcorders is still not worth the difference in quality.

If I had to I would lug around a 50 pounds camera and 20 pound lens to get photos as long as the quality justified it and even if everyone noticed me.

For me, my vision and being able to get the best image quality that lines up with that vision is more important than not getting as much attention and using a light system that is not nearly as capable.

Right now cell phones are at least 10 years behind even the top of the line Point & Shoots.

Go back 10 years and even then the cell phones probably aren't even as good as those 10 year old top of the line point and shoots. ...Show more →

No, Warren, you don't get it. Not trying to be insulting, but reading comprehension is the problem here. I'm sorry you don't understand what was written, but I'm not wasting another calorie on trying to explain what I wrote. The fact is that you're arguing with an idea in your head. An idea you think that I am supporting. I'm saying one thing, and you're hearing something completely different. You think I'm saying megapixels. You think I'm saying smartphones will catch up. You think I'm saying everyone is fine with p&s. Whatever. I'm not wasting another second of my life in this bizarre argument you have with an idea you have in your head that you're attributing to me.

One more thing, Warren. If I believe in the bizarre ideas you are attributing to me, I'd be using the camera in my smartphone. I almost never use the camera in my smartphone.

redisburning wrote:
a 90 non APO isnt 4k tho. APO corrections are some of the more expensive ones, as Im sure you know.

and how much is the Canon 85mm f1.8 again? lol. not saying it's in the same realm, but that is a lens most people consider to be reasonably priced. even the 85L isnt as much as these two f2 lenses at nearly 2 stops faster.

btw, Sonnar better than Summicron? at f1.5 compared to f2? maybe you mean Planar, because the Summicron and Planar both decimate the Sonnar as far as contrast at a given resolution goes at equivalent apertures.

as far as Planar vs Cron goes, well the Cron tends to test better at MTF50 but it's hard to know who wins this battle overall. Zeiss' MTF graphs are incomplete even compared to Leicas, and we cant directly compare them except at f2. If you've ever taken a look at the 50MP's graphs at f4 (they are actually out there if you look hard enough) that lens isnt any better than the ZM Planar but that doesnt mean you can assume the Planar goes to MP levels at f5.6. If it does then yes, that lens does in fact pull ahead of the Summicron.

but, if not, then the area under their mtfs probably equals out and then the cron is smaller and has less distortion.

the summilux ASPH is better than both though, and you pay for that. both in price and in its strange way of making itself look like a telephoto lens at larger apertures.

as far as I see it, the difference is purely in the price point between Leica and Zeiss. at the same price I dont think either would be able to make a lens that is strictly better than the other....Show more →

Red, I don't intent to start a Leica vs Zeiss debate. My reply was precisely to your allegation German made ZM are the same price as Leica M, no more no less. The Sonnar 85/2 is better than the 90/2 summicron, which is quite weak wide open. I never mentioned the C-Sonnar, which is a classic design dating to the early 50s if I'm not mistaken.

Lee Saxon wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding which lenses I'm referring to, the Summilux-C's are the ~$20k each cine lenses. If you know a dealer who has a set in stock, there are a dozen or so members on Reduser who would trample each other getting there.

edwardkaraa wrote:
Red, I don't intent to start a Leica vs Zeiss debate. My reply was precisely to your allegation German made ZM are the same price as Leica M, no more no less. The Sonnar 85/2 is better than the 90/2 summicron, which is quite weak wide open. I never mentioned the C-Sonnar, which is a classic design dating to the early 50s if I'm not mistaken.

fair enough.

I guess the German ZM prices may have been a bit lower than I recalled. The 15/2.8 is definitely not a cheap lens, but I do think a Leica 15 would be in the same price range without the hand ground aspherical elements. and sorry I mistook what you said to be a discussion of the 50s, not the 90s. sorry I dont think about many lenses that aren't 50mm, lol.

to me, there is no Leica vs. Zeiss anyway, both are worth the money. Ive owned a small number from each and when the dust settled I ended up with a Leica film camera with a Zeiss 50 stuck on the front. I took a look at some S2 images, if I had a photography business and was going to invest in a digital camera as a money making tool, the Leica looks like a pretty good road to go down. Sure I would prefer a bigger sensor but arent all of the lenses for those systems Japanese designs? Its not that I dont think they make a quality product, I just prefer German lens designs for the most part, even when they are built by Fuji or Cosina to spec.

Red, absolutely no problem. And I do agree with you that given the same budget, Leica and Zeiss would probably design and produce indistinguishable lenses, even though as a Zeiss fanboy, I still believe they have the upper hand.

As you say, you ended up with a Leica film camera and a Zeiss lens. That actually mirrors my experience as I ended up with an M9 and a small bunch of Zeiss lenses. I still believe that Leica makes the best cameras, and Zeiss the best lenses, especially when you take the price into consideration. I would love to own a summilux 50 but it's almost the price of all my 5 ZM lenses together.

redisburning wrote:
Sure I would prefer a bigger sensor but arent all of the lenses for those systems Japanese designs? Its not that I dont think they make a quality product, I just prefer German lens designs for the most part, even when they are built by Fuji or Cosina to spec.

No, they are not all Japanese designs. The Schneider Kreuznack leaf shutter lenses for the Phase One/ Mamiaya - and there is a whole series of seven of them - are German designs. In my past experience with medium format and large format lenses, Scheider Kreuznack lenses have proven to be very similar to Zeiss lenses in rendering. A Schneider Xenar is similar to a Zeiss Tessar, the Scneider Xenotar similar to the Zeiss Planar. This goes all the way back to the TLR Rollei's. In that case, I have used both Zeiss and Schneider versions and one was not preferable to the other.

let's see a show of hands for people who own the leica s system, how is the camera? how are the lenes? what do like about it? there are a lot of opinions from people who don't own it, let's hear some from people who use the system